Mock Wars

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Dear users,

please note that we have a new forum now. You'll find it here.

The old forum is set to read-only mode now.

Your Ikariam Team

  • Since paying of resources is not allowed on wars or any form of war, there'll be no profit at all.
    Maybe, that's the reason many diagrees. Why not allow a loot for the fighters?
    If they want to loot just to return their investment on money spent, why not make a deal?
    like the maximum allowed trade ship for fighters to be used for looting (ie 10 or 15 ships)?
  • On another server I played on we had a something similar to this. Most of the alliances were relatively peaceful and got a long to a degree after a number of world wars. So for fun we had a loot a thon. A number of top alliances participated and pillaged each other the best they could, and whoever got the most resources won. The alliances were still friends in the end and it was set only for a specific amount of time, but it gave everyone a chance to see what the other alliances could do.

    There were some casualties however. some players that didnt read all the circulars, didnt know why everyone was pillaging them, but I suppose that was there fault. :blackeye:
  • nah we should do this like put ure military into one town obviously have some military in the others but lots in a town you choose then we try to attack that town vice versa and we limit the amount of loot you can take via the ships yeah ?
  • In my personal opinion very few will agree because of this statement:

    That is, official wars with no or little looting involved, they would just be for fun.


    So every person would have to fund the war themselves, meaning slow rebuilding if they get knocked down etc.
  • Well I'm pretty sure the biggest reason you didn't get a very good response is this retarded battle system. For the most part, large battles aren't very fun anymore...as only 1/100 of the army actually fights. There are no super big numbers you can try and reach as a team. Also, at least for me, wars are more taken place in mobile colonies. Now in the good old days, when you're entire army is sitting in a small mobile colony, you never know what's going to happen over night. You're military guy was always lit red due to slow boating, so you always had to check to make sure you weren't going to get hit. Now with this retarded system, people can jump into vacation mode whenever they please. So even if you are being slow boated, come midnight when it's time to go to bed, you can simply hit the vaca button and not worry while you rest your weary little head.

    ...I dunno wars just aren't fun anymore, so a war without profit is even less appealing now.
  • Less talk more talk of war, my thousands of drunken pirates are drooling at the chance to throw it down with a big old brawl!!!!!!! Get sides picked out, find an island or two and lets get it on!!!!!!!


    :cursing:
  • Hockey Pro wrote:

    Nanook of the North: Co-ords please?
    I'm a participant not an organizer.......it's nice to cause and be involved in the trouble, then sleek away when the finger gets pointed. That's what the general does........let the leaders and Diplo's deal with any fall out. I don't shake hands.......I bite them..... :cursing:
  • Sorry for the Delay (and the Wall of Text)

    Shoot, I feel like an absolute idiot... I had this tab open so I could check it when I started up firefox, and didn't notice that there was a second page. Thank you very much to those who replied, I definitely appreciate your interest.



    As for looting, I've been persuaded that there should be looting, but I believe that there should be a limit. Let's say you can only take 40 trade ships for loot (so if your army needs 10 ships, you take 50 in total, and so on), and 4 ships less each time you attack a player (so your third attack would allow you 28 ships), that way it doesn't encourage farming a single player to death. I think this is okay, because it means there's a fair deal of looting, but you can't utterly destroy a player's economy.

    Also, acting on advice pm'ed to me, Mock Wars is a bit of a misleading name, so I'm tentatively changing it to War Games. If anyone can come up with a better name, I'd love to have it :D

    Also acting on pm'ed advice, I feel I've been a bit unclear about time limits. The wars would have no set time limits, instead they would finish when one leader wanted to end it (or both agreed to end it). This means no victory conditions, time limits, or even agreement between the alliances about ending the war.
    These War Games could also be paused by both leaders agreeing to pause the war, however, one leader could not choose to pause the war on his own, (eg. because his alliance was losing), he would have to talk to the other alliance leader to pause it. There could also be time-outs, a certain period of time in which the war is stopped so people can rebuild, this could be a set period of time every few days, or decided upon randomly by the two leaders.
    Also, if one of these wars ends up involving more then two alliances, and one of them wants to end it, then the war could continue between the remaining alliances, or not. The whole point is that the rules are fluid, to be decided between the participating alliances.
    Whatever is decided here can always be changed by the alliances involved, if they want to have more pillaging, or no decrease in trade ships from farming, or change anything else, they can, whatever's fun.


    Addressing a few individual messages that didn't fit in to the rest of the post

    ozzymandias wrote:

    On another server I played on we had a something similar to this. Most of the alliances were relatively peaceful and got a long to a degree after a number of world wars. So for fun we had a loot a thon. A number of top alliances participated and pillaged each other the best they could, and whoever got the most resources won. The alliances were still friends in the end and it was set only for a specific amount of time, but it gave everyone a chance to see what the other alliances could do.

    There were some casualties however. some players that didnt read all the circulars, didnt know why everyone was pillaging them, but I suppose that was there fault. :blackeye:
    That sounds like it would be fun, but the only problem is that it leaves out smaller or lower score alliances who'd like to do get involved in this sort of thing, my aim is to make this doable for anyone who wants to.

    optical wrote:

    nah we should do this like put ure military into one town obviously have some military in the others but lots in a town you choose then we try to attack that town vice versa and we limit the amount of loot you can take via the ships yeah ?
    That's a good idea, perhaps that could be included as an option. If the alliance leaders agree, their participating players could specify a town or towns for attack, and not have to worry about the rest of them.

    Again, sorry, and thanks to everyone who's replied.
    One of the two xXx leaders
  • Sorry, I should have clarified that, the alliance leaders would be the leaders of the alliances participating in the war game. Basically they would have control of the specifics, they could modify the numbers here to suit their desires, as long as all alliances participating agree.
    One of the two xXx leaders